Presentation by Bob Furber, Engineer, to the CRD's Core Area Liquid Waste Management Committee September 22nd 2010
Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Bob Furber. I am a resident of Saanich.
I understand a motion will be put forward for major changes to the Liquid Waste Management Plan, the motivation being that the current plan is theWrongPlan. In fact, theWrongPlan.ca website makes its case quite effectively.
I would like to add to this. One of the obvious flaws of the current Plan is the separation of sewage treatment into two plants, thus destroying the synergies that would be normally enjoyed in an integrated plant.
I am not aware of any other situation where a sewage treatment plant has been thus dismembered. And, for good reason. Well designed sewage treatment plants approach energy self sufficiency ..thanks to smart integration. Biomethane is used internally for co-generation of up to 80% of the power for sewage aeration. Waste heat from power generation is used to provide heat for biodigestion. As a consequence of this integration, the consumption of costly, high grade electrical energy is dramatically reduced. Splitting sewage treatment into 2 plants is not only costly, it flies in the face of energy conservation. Having the plants 18 km apart only makes matters worse.
The only “advantage” of separating the plants is that it enables the CRD to make claims of resource recovery. While it is true that some salable methane will be generated at Hartland, that methane could be used way more effectively and economically to co-generate power and heat for internal use. It is a valiant and somewhat effective attempt to put a positive spin on a bad situation to pander to the yearning for Resource Recovery from sewage.
And, how does the committee feel about using massive amounts of purchased electrical power to make up for power that would otherwise be generated internally, so as to be able to claim carbon credits for methane? Do politics and perception trump economics and energy conservation?
As for recovery of other resources, the good news is that it is technically feasible. The bad news is that it is not economical in the proposed plans, as show by Stantec in their "RESOURCE RECOVERY STUDIES" earlier this year. They reached this conclusion, despite using very favourable “assumptions”. The only way to make heat or water recovery economical for the CRD (i.e. the taxpayer) is to motivate (i.e., force) users to subsidize these initiatives through zoning bylaws to create the perception it is economical.
Of course, the jury is not out yet. The final report on Resource Recovery will not be released until the end of the year. Late enough to have little impact on, what many believe, is a bad plan. In the meantime, consultants are working on ways of making uneconomic Resource Recovery look more appealing.
Oh, yes, let us not forget the Struvite, a phosphorous rich compound that can be recovered from the biodigesters. 270 tons/a of Struvite will generate a gross income of at most $54,000/a ..far short of the cost of operating and maintaining the recovery plant and drying, disinfecting, packaging and retailing the product.
Is the proposed plan theWrongPlan? Will there be any measurable benefit after spending obscene amounts of money, steel, concrete and energy to do what the ocean is currently doing for us, naturally, without smells or disruptions? The truth is we do not want to know. The response to requests for before and after Environmental Impact Studies has been: “They are not required. We have been mandated to do this”. In the meantime, CFAX polls indicate 2/3's of respondents think it is a Bad Plan; theWrongPlan.